(a) 1st:
...an electron weighs a little less than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom,...

2nd - 15th,
CD: ...an electron weighs a little more than 1/2,000th of the
smallest atom,...

(b) 1st:
The positive proton...weighs from two to three thousand times more.

2nd - 15th,
CD: The positive proton...weighs almost two thousand times
more.

Discussion:

[For historical reference,
the first discussion of the relative masses of the structural elements of
atoms in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is found in its 13th
Edition (1926):

“Through the experimental
discoveries of the second half of the 19th century it became gradually
clear that the atoms of the elements, far from being indivisible entities,
had to be thought of as aggregates built up of separate particles. Thus from
experiments on electrical discharges in rarified gases and especially from
a closer study of the so-called cathode rays, one was led to recognise the
existence of small negatively charged particles the mass of which was found
to be about 2,000 times as small as the mass of the lightest atom, the hydrogen
atom. These small particles, which may be regarded as atoms of negative electricity
are now, following Johnstone Stoney, generally called electrons. Through
the investigations of J. J. Thomson and others convincing evidence was obtained
that these electrons are a constituent of every atom...” (Vol. 29 pg. 262)]

The revised wording is consistent
with the statement in the paragraph following the subject paragraph (42:6.8),
where the author states that a proton is “eighteen hundred times as heavy
as an electron;” and is also in general agreement with current scientific
opinion which places the ratio at about 1:1,836.

If it is assumed that the
author of this paper is not the source of the apparent error in the 1955 text,
the only mechanism available is an E1 error similar to explanation #2 for
the note regarding 41:4.4: If one erroneously interpreted the electron :
proton ratio of 1:1,800 as being slightly less than 1/2,000, one might view
an original (inferred) passage that was synonymous with the 1967 version as
being in error, and suggest those changes in wording which are found in the
1955 text—which then had to be un-done once the erroneous correction was recognized.

There is no direct evidence
that this was the actual mechanism for the origin of this error, but
if the authors were prone to mathematical clumsiness, and the quality
of the text was due to excellent mathematical editing, The Urantia Book
would not contain the flaw under discussion, but would contain a number of
errors that simply could not have been found without computers. (For instance,
the calculation of the days and dates in the Jesus papers was virtually impossible
until a few years ago, but now, anyone with a good calendar program can go
back to the years a.d.1 - a.d.30 and find that every day associated with a
date was calculated correctly somehow by someone during the 1930’s.*) If,
however, the authors were far better mathematicians than the editors, we might
observe precisely what we do observe: one or two errors caused by the
well-intentioned editorial misinterpretation of proximate data.

(*The apparent miscalculation
of Pentecost is a separate issue that will be analyzed in a forthcoming paper.)

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is incorrect.
This editor’s best explanation, at present, is an E1 change, apparently involving
several words, made prior to publication to correct what was believed to be
an earlier human error.

The insertion of well-nigh
was perhaps made because the observed deterioration of the known man-made
elements with atomic numbers above 100, while extremely rapid, is not instantaneous—if
by that description one means that such elements would have half-lives of
zero. However:

a) Given the time-frame within
which a Mighty Messenger (the author of Paper 42) views reality, the phraseology
hardly requires correction even if the sentence is to be understood as just
described.

b) It is not self-evident
that the “disruption of the central proton” is identical with the nuclear
deterioration which we measure in terms of half-lives. The central proton’s
disruption might be the immediate cause for the rapid, though not instantaneous,
decay which our scientists observe.

c) The procedure described
by the paper’s author which leads to the disruption—the insertion of an additional
electron into the orbital field of an element that already contains 100 electrons—is
itself distinct from the methods whereby transuranium elements are created
by our scientists, which involve the insertion of additional particles into
the atomic nucleus by various means.

d) It is of interest to note
that (laboratory-scale creation of minuscule quantities—no more than a few
thousand atoms—of short-lived, heavier elements notwithstanding), the heaviest
element ever created during the large-scale matter/energy conversions/interactions
of either nuclear reactors or underground nuclear explosions has consistently
been an isotope of fermium (the 100th element)—an unexpected fact
for which our scientists have found no ready explanation since the early 1960s
when this phenomenon was first observed.

Thus, the editorial decision
to introduce well-nigh into the text was unwarranted—being unnecessary
at best, and scientifically incorrect at worst.

Conclusion:

Current science does not
require alteration of the 1955 text (even if, for the sake of argument, such
a change were within the editor’s province).

) 43:1.6; p.486 ¶5
Change type: M2

1st:
...established almost four thousand years ago, immediately after...

The second edition correction
appears to be warranted based on a reference at 119:7.2:

“The public announcement that Michael
had selected Urantia as the theater for his final bestowal was made shortly
after we learned about the default of Adam and Eve. And thus, for more than
thirty‑five thousand years, your world occupied a very conspicuous place
in the councils of the entire universe.”

The default occurred about
37,800 years ago, so “almost forty thousand” and “more than thirty‑five
thousand” would seem to be equally reasonable descriptions.

While the original reading
could have been caused by a T2/T3 typing error, the words don’t really fit
that type of error very well. Another possibility is that an (E1) incorrect
pre-publication edit was made by mistakenly associating the establishment
of the college with the time of Machiventa’s bestowal (4,000 years ago).

It is this editor’s opinion,
however, that the problem is identical in origin to that of 41:4.4: the number
in question was written as a numeral in the manuscript (40,000 not
forty thousand), and that the error was caused by the loss of a zero
before the number was formatted into words for printing. (The proper formatting
of words and numbers is precisely the type of editorial decision that the
revelators could give to the humans preparing the form of the text
for printing without giving those humans any authority to change any of the
content of the text.) If this theory is correct, this is a simple
T1 (dropped keystroke) error, disguised by the later change in formatting
of the number.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is incorrect;
it should read forty thousand. There are several possible causes,
this editor favors a T1 (dropped keystroke) error based on the theory that
the manuscript contained numerals rather than written-out numbers.

) 43:8.2; p.494 ¶1
Change type: S2

1st:
While you are rekeyed each time...

2nd - 15th,
CD: While you are re-keyed each time...

Discussion:

The only other occurrence
of re-keyed is in hyphenated form (48:2.14).

Words formed with the “re-”
prefix, fall under the same general Chicago Manual rule referred to
for (29:4.27) above, but this instance is covered by an exception:

“a) When the first
vowel of the added word would...suggest mispronunciation, the hyphen is retained.”

In this case, the un-hyphenated
form appears to indicate that the first syllable is pronounced with a short
e, causing the reader to stumble. Insertion of the hyphen resolves
the problem.

Conclusion:

There was an error of either
type T1 (dropped keystroke) or type E2 (incorrect editorial decision regarding
hyphenation) in the 1995 text.

This is one of the minor
errors that entered the database when the original plates were first discarded.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 47:0.4; p.530 ¶4
Change type: M1

1st - 6th:
The seven mansion worlds are in charge of the morontia supervisors...

7th - 15th,
CD: The seven mansion worlds are in the charge of the morontia
supervisors...

Discussion:

This was an unnecessary edit,
as the phrase in charge of may be employed either actively (“...the
morontia supervisors in charge of the mansion worlds...”) or passively (“...the
mansion worlds in charge of the morontia supervisors...”). Although the former
is more common today, the latter construction would not have appeared awkward
for any reader of English before the mid-twentieth century; even now, no reasonable
reader could claim a basis for confusion unless the author has used the phrase
in an inappropriate setting—when the priority of the related parties is not
self-evident. The underlying relationship between the parties, here and at
the other instances of this construction in the text (46:5.17; 73:7.4; 183:4.4;
187:6.2), is clear; so the authors’ choice of words was correct, unambiguous
and reasonable.

The comma in the original
sentence is correctly utilized to separate the beginning independent phase
from the trailing dependent phrase. The comma’s location at the end of a
line makes it a likely candidate for inadvertent loss when the text was translated
from the original plates—a D1 change—but does not explain its later disappearance
in the 15th printing.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 51:6.3; p.587 ¶1
Change type: S5/S6

1st - 5th,
CD: ...situated not far‑distant still another and
older headquarters...

6th - 15th:
...situated not far distant still another and older headquarters...

Discussion:

There is no basis for removing
the hyphen. Far-distant in any structural setting is a single concept.
The only un-hyphenated instance of these two words in the text (94:5.6) bears
no grammatical relationship to this construction and is very closely related
to all of the hyphenated examples. That one case cannot therefore be used
as a justification for this change and is itself a reasonable candidate for
editorial standardization.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 52:6; p.597
Change type: S2

1st:
6. Urantia’S POST-BESTOWAL AGE

2nd - 15th,
CD: 6. Urantia’S POSTBESTOWAL AGE

Discussion:

The un-hyphenated form is
more commonly found in the text, but the original form is appropriate at this
location (as a section title) because of its parallelism with the titles of
sections two through five and seven of this paper. Only standardization for
electronic search might justify the change (which would require the alteration
of section five's title as well).

Conclusion:

There was no error in the
1955 text, but standardization for electronic search, if universally applied,
might justify a change.

) 53:5.2; p.605 ¶6
Change type: P2

1st - 10th,
12th - 15th, CD:...the two which preceded it
there was no absolute...

11th:
...the two which preceded it, there was no absolute...

Discussion:

Although a comma here might
assist in phrasing, there is no need to insert one.

Conclusion:

The 1955 punctuation is reasonable.

) 53:7.8; p.608 ¶4
Change type: M2

1st:
Of the 681,227 Material Sons lost in Satania,...

2nd - 15th,
CD: Of the 681,217 Material Sons lost in Satania,...

Discussion:

The change from 681,227 to
681,217 was, presumably, made because of the following passage:

“Since the inception of the system
of Satania, thirteen Planetary Adams have been lost in rebellion and default
and 681,204 in the subordinate positions of trust.” (51:1.5)

It does appear that one of
the numbers is in error, but whether 681,227 should be reduced by ten or 681,204
should be increased by ten cannot be determined from the text. The cause
of the error in the first edition is almost certainly a single mistaken keystroke
(T3).

Conclusion:

There was an T3 error made
at some point but insufficient contextual evidence makes it impossible to
reconstruct the original.

) 54:6.10; p.620 ¶2
Change type: P2

1st - 10th,
12th - 15th, CD: At least I was not even
when I had thus attained...

11th:
At least I was not, even when I had thus attained...

Discussion:

Though this comma may help
the reader in phrasing the sentence, in the absence of compelling evidence
that the extant text is a corrupted version of the original, the editor is
not justified in superimposing his own preferences over the author’s choice
of expression.

The loss of the second n
in the sixth printing was probably due to an unnoticed database corruption.
The likelihood that this is the source of the problem is increased by the
fact that in the first through eleventh editions, the text flow caused millennium
to be broken after the first n, with the remaining letters moving to
the following line.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 55:12.5; p.636 ¶6
Change type: S5

1st, 2nd:
None of us entertain a satisfactory concept...

3rd - 15th,
CD: None of us entertains a satisfactory concept...

Discussion:

This change was apparently
made under the misconception that, because of their semantic similarity, none
and no one share the same syntax. However, both Webster’s and
the OED attest that none, commonly takes a plural verb.

The removal of this comma,
located originally at the end of a line, was probably inadvertent, one of
many similar problems arising in the 3rd printing.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text is correct.

) 61:3.13; p.697 ¶8
Change type: S3

1st:
Weasels, martins, otters, and raccoons...

2nd - 15th,
CD: Weasels, martens, otters, and raccoons...

Discussion:

A single mistaken keystroke
(T3 error) could have produced martins from an intended martens.
It is also possible, however, that the original form was the author’s choice,
being a correct, though less common, variant. (We cannot assert that the author
would not use an unusual variant, because coons was used for raccoons
only two pages previously. (61:2.7; p.695 ¶5))

Inasmuch as martin
is not found in any other context (e.g. purple martin), there is no
need to change the spelling to improve the accuracy of the electronic database.

Unless it is the policy of
an editor to standardize all of an author’s spellings to the most common
variant, the best course of action, if it is believed that the reader will
need assistance with unusual words, is to create a comprehensive cross-reference.

Conclusion:

The 1955 text might
contain a T3 error, but requires no change.

) 69:3.9; p.774 ¶8
Change type: S2

1st - 9th,
12th - 14th, CD: ...the flint flakers
and stonemasons...

10th, 11th,
15th: ...the flint flakers and
stone masons...

Discussion:

The original is clear, and
is a correct form, but of nine occurrences in the text this is the only instance
in which the compound form is found; this change would therefore be a reasonable
standardization of the database.

Conclusion:

It is likely that the 1955
text contained a dropped keystroke (T1) error here.